TheActualDevil

But if it's illegal there wouldn't be legal brothels around?

And I haven't followed through but I've looked into prostitution in my area through various means. There do seem to be fairly moral options in my opinion. People who work independent and interact directly with the customer and they keep all the money. They have their own space to meet and they have the option of refusal at any time.

I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally, or that what you're saying is harmful, but I do worry. It feels like you're demonizing an entire industry and adding to the idea that it's immoral unless done through brothels. Sex work is work, and while often people end up there out of necessity, that's not much different than any other job people work these days. I would say that people who knowingly pay for sex work where the worker doesn't have their full autonomy is, at best, selfish and shortsighted.

Or are you saying that because it's a crime, by paying for it they're contributing to the sex worker also doing something illegal and that's bad?

Hold up. I'm not super experienced in reading studies, but I can read.

1. At best this is correlation. HRV increasing for these men doesn't mean a high HRV is required to be good at chess.

2. Sample size of 16... And only male.

HRV was reduced in participants who achieved worse results. This could indicate the possibility of HRV predicting cognitive performance

If reduced HRV means lower cognitive performance and women have, on average, lower HRV, you're saying women are less smart. At least in chess. I think that's bullshit and this study isn't incorporating enough/the correct data to show anything you're stating.

But here is one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763411002077 that links HRV with stress response

And another: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763419310292 That shows women's HRV responds less severely to stress.

Both meta-analysis, not a single data point.

So maybe men are just shit at dealing with stress and that's why their brains go haywire during competition. But it's so gracious of you being so kind to women and giving them a space where they can play among equals on a "MORE level playing field."

By your logic, they should just be testing people's HRV and ranking them that way so they all are on even ground. Give those dummy men a MORE level playing field.

I mean, the real answer is that chess is full of toxic people who've made it to the top to run the organization. The fact that this behavior wasn't curtailed already shows that. Its just an accepted part of it. If the ones who would make the decision to ban those players don't already see an issue they're not going to start now to make the space better for women.

Sure, that's the concept, and it's a problem. But that's not what the name "Human Resources" means. That's like saying the office of Veteran Affairs is implying that veterans are themselves affairs. The title is obviously meant to imply resources for humans. It's a lie, but that's what those words are supposed to mean. It's not called "Humans are Resources."

You're allowed not to pay your taxes to fund socialist programs. There is a consequence of jail, but you have that choice. How is it different?

I'm sure that's a major part of it, but I also wouldn't want to live in a world where we could only get aspirin from willow bark. We either wouldn't have enough aspirin or we wouldn't have any more willow trees. Medicines derived from the actual source aren't possible on a global scale in most cases.

Capitalism is a blight on society and has lead to countless deaths. But in a utopia where money doesn't exist and people create medicine for the world only to help people with no profit they still need to synthesize it.

Have you ever watched a movie? Were you blown away by all the execs they added in the credits and assumed they must have had thousands of others under them not mentioned? Or do you not typically assume every other industry follows the same standard as yours?

What you said is akin to me saying "Why are they expecting their name on things? The restaurant I work at doesn't put my name on the menu when I'm cooking that night."

It's a different industry and I would be foolish to assume the standards in mine definitely should translate to others, and then confidently comment publicly about it.

"It's a very true dichotomy!"

Proceeds to make up an imagined scenario with a ridiculous fake name to prove it's reality.

I mean, sure, you can blame this batch on the internet and necessary SEO, but good artists being skipped over is nothing new. There were days before the internet (and even after it's implementation, but before the ecosystem you are talking about existed) where artists and band with immense talent were lost to time because things didn't line up just right for them to be successful. Bands played gig after gig, sending their singles to record companies and nothing happened. Just being good at a thing has never been enough. That's just step 1. Often, the right person has to see you, and that person has to be in the position to elevate you at the time. Maybe that industry guy was just in a bad mood that day and wasn't enjoying any music and you just got a bad night.

And we have examples of visual artists dying in obscurity only for their art to hit it big after their death. It's a whole trope in the art world. Van Gogh is probably the most famous. He died penniless having only sold a single painting while alive, and that was to his brother, a frickin art dealer! He even had a guy on the inside and couldn't make it. Impressionism was a new school, but not exactly empty. As a genre it basically got it's own museum in the Musée d'Orsay, and still, one of the greatest artists in the genre (and probably all art) couldn't get a fucking break. Talent is often not enough. Luck and timing have always been more important.

Go crazy?

I mean, easier? Sure. But I don't think most people would find it easy to just say go torture a guy. At least I hope so.

I've genuinely been trying to understand how people like the movie so much. The first time I watched it, I thought it was bad. So I came back to it a little while later and give it a second shot. Maybe I was just in a bad mood that day? Everyone seems to love it. Nope, still bad. Even gave it a third shot a few weeks ago and it felt even worse.

I read the first 3 books a few times, but I always try to put aside the source material when it moves to a new media. And the movie seemed to me like it was just a string of barely connected scenes, tied together solely because they shared characters. It was almost entirely just book references without trying to make a story out of them. It was entirely spectacle, and they still couldn't really get the scale right, which I think bugs me more than anything. It shows these giant buildings and ships that hint at vast crowds of people, and we only ever see a handful at a time on screen. Even "crowd" scenes are sparse. It feels like they're trying to make Arrakis feel giant and daunting to show the difference between the expansive dessert dwarfing crowds, then realized they didn't have the money for crowds so they just zoomed in on 4 people.

And they should have ended the story sooner. End with the climax battle and them getting to safety and save everything after for the next movie. Use that new time to actually get me invested in the characters, or the setting, or the story... anything. Make the first movie about palace intrigue as they know they're in danger and not sure who they can trust and gaining allies. Instead, all of that got like, one scene each and only makes sense if you've read the book. The best thing I can say is they put a tiny bit more effort in to showing Paul using the Voice before it's relevant to the story. So at least they cared enough about grounding that. Just not about literally anything else.

I desperately want someone to win me over and tell me what makes this a good movie. I feel like I'm missing something.